Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT BANSAL
Oracle America, inc. – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Khandelwal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BANSAL, J.
1. The present rectification petition has been filed under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) seeking cancellation of the registration of the trade mark bearing registration no. 5420304 in Class 41 in the name of the respondent no.1 (hereinafter ‘impugned mark’), who filed the application for registration on 22nd April, 2022 and was granted registration on 10th July, 2023.
2. Notice in the application for ad interim stay on the operation of the impugned registration was issued and was accepted on behalf of the respondents in court on 1st August, 2024.
3. Vide the order dated 1st August, 2024, when the respondent no.1 was present through counsel, the court also directed that a status quo be maintained qua the impugned mark and the respondent no.1 was granted four weeks to file a reply to the aforesaid application, which expired on 29th August, 2024. No reply to the present petition or the aforesaid application on behalf of the respondent no.1 has been filed till date.
4. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent no.1 on the previous date of hearing and none appears on his behalf even today.
BRIEF FACTS
5. Brief facts
The registration of a trade mark that is identical or similar to an existing mark is liable to be cancelled if it is likely to cause confusion among consumers.
Registration of a trademark may be cancelled if it is found to be deceptively similar to a prior registered mark and has not been used for five years, reflecting both private and public interest.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act to determine the likelihood of confusion based on phonetic similarity and the priority....
Prior use and distinctiveness of a trademark override subsequent registrations, establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for distinctiveness of a mark for registration under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, and the need for the Registrar to p....
A trade mark recognized as well-known under the Trade Marks Act is protected against concurrent use by others regardless of the class of goods, particularly when evidence of rightful prior use and bo....
Prior adoption and user rights establish entitlement to trademark protection, and their absence undermines claims for rectification, regardless of phonetic similarity.
Registration validity sustained if distinctiveness established over time despite claims of descriptiveness.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a rectification petition seeking removal of a device mark from the register of trade marks must establish a fresh cause of action for rectific....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
